Tag Archives: united church of Christ

Terry Jones and theologically Liberal Christians: Birds of a feather?

Well, at least when they claim special revelation from God they are similar.

As I read Pyromaniacs: Charismatics and Qu’ran-burning/not-burning Terry Jones, I couldn’t help but think how the planning-to-burn-the-Quran-oops-changed-my-mind Terry Jones is so similar to false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie and those like him.

I see professing Christians of all types claim to hear from God.  We should all be very careful about speaking for God, especially if you aren’t quoting scripture at the time.

Was Jones off base?  Of course.  People across the spectrum denounced him.  But now he claims God was guiding his steps on that little adventure.  I suppose that was possible in some hyper-technical sense, but the burden of proof is on him to prove it.

But consider the “God is still speaking;” slogan from the United Church of Christ and “reverends” like Chuck Currie.  They use that line to support all sorts of updates from God, such as how Jesus is pro-legalized abortion, pro-oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” and more.  Why should we believe them?

Has anyone else noticed that in their experience God is only “speaking” to theological Liberals in the West like those in the UCC, even though they didn’t believe what God had to say in the Bible to begin with?  Go figure.

Attributing the opposite of what the Bible teaches to God sounds more like blaspheming the Holy Spirit to me.

Was Jones wrong?  Yep.  But nowhere near as wrong as Currie, the UCC and other theological Liberals who claim that God is telling them the opposite of what He revealed in the Bible.  Run, don’t walk, from false teachers like them.

Is this a bigger insult to President Obama or to the UCC? Maybe it’s a tie.

Race-baiting false teacher Chuck Currie provides a good chuckle with this post: “President Obama is a Christian, and a fairly typical United Church of Christ sort of Christian at that.”

Uh, is that some sort of defense?  Would Chuck also be a “fairly typical” UCC sort of Christian with his beliefs that:

  • Jesus is not the only way to salvation
  • Jesus is pro-abortion, including partial-birth abortion and taxpayer-funded abortion
  • the Holy Spirit told him and the other Liberals in the UCC that God has changed his stance on marriage, parenting and homosexual behavior (now that’s blasphemy!)
  • the book of John doesn’t belong in the Bible
  • the Gospel of Thomas does belong in the Bible
  • it is acceptable to lie and libel people on blogs as long as you think you won’t get caught
  • Christians  have as much to learn from other religions as they do from us (really?  I don’t remember Jesus saying that . . .)
  • and so much more!

Ultimately only God knows the hearts of Obama and everyone else.  But Jesus did say to be fruit inspectors — and it was even in the Sermon on the Mount that even theological Liberals claim to love (but don’t really understand):

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:15–20, ESV)

Ann Coulter is much more likely than Chuck to be right in her Obama is Not a Muslim post (though Chuck will surely say how mean Ann is as soon and how we need to foster positive dialogue — that is, as soon as he is done calling her a racist KKK sympathizer).

The nonsense about President Obama being a Muslim has got to stop. I rise to defend him from this absurd accusation by pointing out that he is obviously an atheist.

Leave aside Obama’s fanatical opposition to allowing Illinois hospitals to save the lives of babies with God-given souls inadvertently born alive during abortions. Also leave aside the fact that neither of his parents were Christians. And leave aside his current crop of “spiritual advisers,” which is a collection of Mother Earth worshippers, polytheists and other nonbelievers.

Now rest from all that “leaving aside.”

The only evidence for Obama’s Christianity is that he faithfully attended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years.

. . .

This was inadvertently admitted by Obama’s leading butt-boy, Richard Wolffe, on North Korean TV Monday night. Wolffe acknowledged that Wright’s liberation theology was not Christianity, but then forcefully distinguished Obama from the Rev. Wright –- i.e., Obama’s sole character witness for his alleged Christianity.

Of Glenn Beck’s denunciation of liberation theology as a false religion, Wolffe said: “Is he debating Jeremiah Wright or Barack Obama? They’re two different people. If he wants to debate liberation theology with Wright, he’s got something to talk about. But liberation theology hasn’t been anything espoused by this president.”

But it was espoused in the only church Obama ever attended regularly — for 20 years, no less — was married in and had his daughters baptized in. The title of Obama’s autobiography came from the title of one of Wright’s sermons and snippets from Wright’s sermons have appeared in Obama’s work.

So the sole evidence of Obama’s supposed Christianity is his longtime pastor, who everyone admits is a racist nut.

No sentient human is required to take Obama’s profession of Christianity any more seriously than if it were coming from a 1980s blow-dried, money-grubbing televangelist with a mistress on the side.

. . .

Former divinity student Al Gore famously botched a biblical verse, switching God’s instruction that we put heaven before earthly things (“For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also,” Matthew 6:21) by saying we should make the Earth our treasure. (In the druidical religion of liberalism, not separating your recyclables is a sin, but abortion is just a medical procedure.)

Howard Dean told a reporter his favorite book of the New Testament was Job.

It took the Democrats’ born-again Christian Jimmy Carter three decades to announce, in 2005, that he didn’t think Jesus would approve of abortion (“unless the mother’s life or health was in danger or perhaps the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest,” etc. etc.).

Some highly relevant bonus comments from Roxanne (do not miss the closing line!):

Thee man who shrouds the actual Messiah and talks about parting the waters does not extend the same respect to his own family . While Obama became a wealthy nationally-recognised figure, his aunt was on welfare in Boston and his brother lived in poverty in Kenya (and still does) – like living on a few hundred dollars a yearabject poverty.  His brother’s keeper, Obama is not. Obama does not fare better with strangers: even the New York Times reported that Obama gave more money  to charity as he ran for President and most of those “charitable donations” went to Rev. Wright’s racist church:

“The Obamas’ returns are striking on a number of levels. They show that the couple made very few charitable contributions, sometimes less than 1 percent of taxable income, until Mr. Obama began his run for the White House.”

When the New York Times calls a liberal out like that, you know it’s bad.  This is also the same Barack Obama who wanted to (or still wants to) put charities, many of which are religious, under the control of the federal government.   I’m sure that Mr. Constitutional Law is well aware that if charities were run by the government, the Establishment Clause would destroy their religious missions.

Could the man, despite all this, be Christian?  In a quantum-mechanical, “all things are possible depending on the probabilty density of the electron cloud” way, perhaps.  In a “Only God knows the heart of Man” way, perhaps.  In any way that is meaningful to Christians who vote their values?  Hell, no.

Run, don’t walk, from the UCC

Welcome visitors!  Please be sure to read Whaling on false teachers in less than 5 minutes! for more background.  God gave many lessons about the importance of sound doctrine.  The false teachers that sent you here mock those passages.  Eternity is a mighty long time, so don’t follow those fakes.


False teacher ChuckJesus is not the only way” Currie referred to this United Church of Christ (UCC) announcement in his comments on this post to justify his support for oxymoronic “same-sex marriage.”  Read it to see why this denomination is apostate.

Theological and Biblical Foundations

The message of the Gospel is the lens through which the whole of scripture is to be interpreted.

Yes, but the UCC gets the Gospel wrong.  The Gospel is that Jesus died for our sins and rose again and that by trusting in him we get forgiveness and eternal life (see 1 Corinthians 15).  You won’t find that in this UCC gobbledygook.

Love and compassion, justice and peace are at the very core of the life and ministry of Jesus. It is a message that always bends toward inclusion.

Inclusion?  Sure, but on what terms?  Is everyone included even if they don’t repent and believe?  No.  Notice how they don’t mention anything about repentance.  The only “sin” for them on this topic is not being pro-oxymoronic same-sex marriage.

The biblical story recounts the ways in which inclusion and welcome to God’s community is ever-expanding – from the story of Abraham and Sarah, to the inclusive ministry of Jesus, to the baptism of Cornelius, to the missionary journeys of Paul throughout the Greco- Roman world. The liberating work of the Spirit as witnessed in the activities of Jesus’ ministry has been to address the situations and structures of exclusion, injustice and oppression that diminish God’s people and keep them from realizing the full gift of human personhood in the context of human communion.

That’s odd, because Chuck and the UCC are pro-abortion.  They deny the human personhood of the unborn.  They won’t protect the unborn from being crushed and dismembered but shake their fists at God in support of perverting his ideal for marriage.  But they care so much about “human personhood” that they must bless what God has called sinful?

The Bible is very clear:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

The biblical call to justice and compassion (to love one’s neighbor as one’s self) provides the mandate for marriage equality.

That is a non sequitur.  Using that logic it would mandate “marriage equality” for humans and animals (see Leviticus 18 verses 22 and 23).  Why doesn’t the UCC use their same logic to overturn v. 23 while they are at it?

Justice as right relationship seeks both personal and communal well being. It is embodied in interpersonal relationships and institutional structures, including marriage.

That is just gibberish.

Justice seeks to eliminate marginalization for reasons of race, gender, sexual orientation or economic status.

Only in their made up definition.  And they beg the question about sexual orientation.  The burden of proof is on them to prove that it is genetic (it isn’t) and that even if it was why that would trump the clear word of God.

The language of covenant is central to the message of scripture concerning relationships and community. Both in the message of the prophets and the teachings of Jesus, covenant relationships are important, taken seriously by God and are to be taken seriously by God’s people.

More non sequitur gibberish.  They just throw the words justice, covenental, relationships, etc. as often as they can to make it sound good.

The overriding message of the Gospel is that God calls God’s people to live fully the gift of love in responsible, faithful, just, committed, covenantal relationships of trust that recognize and respect the image of God in all people. These Gospel values are at the core of the covenantal relationship that we call marriage.

They make up a definition of the Gospel and work from there.

It is essential to note that the Gospel values of covenant do not come from the practices of marriage, which change and evolve throughout the history of the biblical story.

Jesus reiterated the plan for marriage from Genesis: One man and one woman.  God’s ideal did not evolve.

Indeed, it is not possible to rely exclusively on scripture for understanding marriage today. For example, biblical texts that encourage celibacy, forbid divorce, or requirewomen to be subservient to their husbands are not considered to be authoritative because they are primarily expressions of the cultural norms of the ancient Middle East.

That works if you deliberately misunderstand the text.

At the same time, there are also many biblical models for blessed relationships beyond one man and one woman. Indeed, scripture neither commends a single marriage model nor commands all to marry, but rather calls for love and justice in all relationships.

The Bible has no issue with friendships.  It has zero examples of “blessed” homosexual behavior.

We recognize and affirm that the covenantal values that are essential to the Gospel are central to how we understand marriage in this time. We also recognize and affirm that all humans are made in the image and likeness of God, including people of all sexual orientations, and God has bestowed upon each one the gift of human sexuality.

Again, note that Chuck and the UCC offer no protections to the humans in the womb who are made in the likeness of God.  They are pro-abortion.

And just because people are made in God’s image doesn’t mean they get a free pass on sinning.

Further, we recognize and affirm that, as created in God’s image and gifted by God with human sexuality, all people have the right to lead lives that express love, justice, mutuality, commitment, consent and pleasure.

They are just making things up as they go along.

Is God still speaking about marriage?

The overwhelming testimonies of countless couples, regardless of gender, throughout the United Church of Christ, and beyond, say, “Yes, God is still speaking.” Couples who have chosen to exchange covenantal vows attest to the blessing of God’s abundance and lifegiving power in their relationships.

The UCC slogan that “God is still speaking” is a tip-off  This would be true provided that it meant that God still speaks through his Word.  However, they use this phrase to mean that God is changing his moral laws — and oddly enough, He is only telling westerners in Liberal denominations!

These apostates don’t think God communicated his laws in a discernible way in the first place (i.e., in the Bible), but they now think He is communicating with Swiss-watch precision to them.

Through their committed relationships, many throughout the church – parents, siblings, children, friends and others – have witnessed the liberation of the gifts of God for service in the world.

Another non sequitur.  Just because people have gifts doesn’t mean you need to sanction their rebellion against God.

Therefore, theologically and biblically, there is neither justification for denying any couple, regardless of gender, the blessings of the church nor for denying equal protection under the law in the granting of a civil marriage license, recognized and respected by all civil entities.

Actually there are many reasons.  Again:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.Yes, God is still speaking through his word, and He is still warning people against bad theology and churches like the UCC.
  • Digg This

    Another fan!

    Be sure to read the whole post to understand how Chuck Currie is a serial, unrepentant liar.  He falsely accused me of writing things on his blog that I did not write and despite many requests he has never provided documentation.  Why?  Because he lied.

    circle-slash.jpgThis is interesting!  I was mentioned (though not by name) in a recent sermon by Chuck Currie titled Who is a Christian?  He actually quoted this post of mine where I pointed out how odd it was for a “Christian” pastor to do a whole sermon on John 14:6 and to conclude that Jesus is not the only way to salvation and that we should find truth in other religions as well. 

    John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

    Chuck didn’t even realize that there are 99 other verses supporting that view and that to teach otherwise was profoundly un-Christian.  He considers the Gospel of John to be unreliable but thinks the Gospel of Thomas is authoritative.  And so on.

    True to form, though, he mischaracterized my piece and made it sound like I opposed being tolerant to other religions and that I said he was a non-Christian because he was tolerant.  That is a lie, and it is easily demonstrated by reading my post and listening to the audio of Chuck’s sermon.  I am all for tolerance of other religions and other people in general.  Chuck repeated his claim that God speaks to Buddhists and Muslims in their religions, which is false and profoundly un-Biblical.  My original post was spectacularly clear but Chuck took it out of context and played the martyr role.  Maybe I could conference call in to his service some time and clear things up.

    Chuck disagrees with Jesus and his word, a lot.  That is why I question his authenticity.

    According to his sermon, Chuck’s definition of a Christian is:

    A Christian is a person who hears the Sermon on the Mount and says, “Amen.”

    That’s it.  Really?  I thought it was more about repenting & believing and trusting in Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

    I need to do a whole series on this, but Chuck and those like him can’t really like the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).  It portrays Jesus as being very intolerant.  He tells the Pharisees how they are doing everything wrong – worship, giving, praying, fasting, etc.  He upholds every letter and penstroke of the Old Testament.  He spoke of judgment.  He emphatically shows that there are false religions – the very thing that Chuck teaches the opposite of.  He warns strongly against false teachers – people like Chuck Currie!

    I’d love for one of these religious pluralists to answer this: If they really believe that all these religions lead to God, shouldn’t they send out reverse missionaries to convert Christians back to their local religions?  Why should Christians in India be suffering so if Hinduism is an equally valid path to God? 

    Chuck also played the “we just don’t take the Bible literally” game.  I don’t take it literally, either.  I read it in context.

    Here’s another post where I analyzed Chuck’s games, such as using the guilt by association logical fallacy.  And another where he spread lies about Sarah Palin.

    He is also pro-gay marriage and pro-legalized abortion.  Shocking.

    2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

    Lesson learned: False teachers don’t like to be called false teachers.  Maybe next time he’ll quote me in context.  At least he is reading. 

    I will give him credit for one thing: His sermon was only 13:22 minutes long.  It was mainly about my comments and those of someone criticizing the UCC (the United Church of Christ, or as Marie would say, Unitarians Considering Christ).  So much for exegesis.

    UPDATE: Now the “Reverend” is doubling down.  He deleted at least one of my comments on his blog.  That is no problem, since it is his blog.  I’ve deleted many comments here (though none of his) for what I consider to be good reasons.  If he considered them off topic, or just didn’t like them, I wouldn’t even mention anything. 

    But when I pointed out the deletions to him he said it was because they were “racist, sexist, homophobic” and “more.”  That is a another lie.  The total number of examples he offered was zero.  I pressed him to back up his accusations, and I’m saving copies of all my comments now.  It will be interesting to see if he tries to back up his words or even posts my request.

    Here is what he wrote on his blog:

    The only comments that I block are those that are racist, sexist or homophobic. I also ban some comments because of offensive language. Sorry to say that you’ve done all that and more and I just won’t allow those kinds of remarks on my site.

    Here is my response:

    I think you are mistaken. How about proving me wrong by posting the comments that you say had all these offensive things in them? You know you have them in your email.

    Be a man and prove me wrong and let me respond, or don’t libel me that way.

    You have now accused me of the following comments, so if you are an honest man you’ll provide at least one example of each.

    – Racist
    – Sexist
    – Homophobe (An irrational fear of gays? Right.)
    – Offensive language
    – “More” (whatever that means)

    I know you are probably mad because I did the post about how you quoted me out of context in your sermon. An apology would have been nice but I didn’t expect that. But you could at least not dig a deeper hole for yourself.

    I’ll be saving copies of all my comments from here on out.

    I’m still waiting for him to post my comment.  Is the false teacher lying and libeling again?  Will he back up his claims?

    Update: As of Dec. 31, 2008, Chuck has still not apologized for his lies.  Worse yet, when another commenter reminded him of our discussions Chuck deliberately repeated the lies.  Hopefully one of the “Reverend’s” New Year’s resolutions is to stop libeling people and to repent of his lies. 

    Jesus is still the only way

    cross3.jpgcross3.jpgcross3.jpgThe Rev. Chuck Currie wrote a piece called, “John 14:6 – Is Jesus the only path to God?”  He is a pastor with the highly theologically liberal United Church of Christ denomination.  Here’s most of the post with some of my comments.

    Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. – John 14:6 (NRSV)

    Tonight at church we had another session of our Remedial Christianity course. Part of the discussion centered on the widely accepted Christian notion that the only path to God is through Jesus. But are there other paths to God?

    Speaking for many (myself [Rev. Currie] included), The Center for Progressive Christianity has said:

    By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God’s realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us.

    As I’ve pointed out before, there are 100 verses in the Bible referencing how Jesus is the only way to salvation.  How someone could go through seminary and not catch onto the fact that many passages besides John 14:6 make this point is beyond me.

    Of course, the existence of 100 verses isn’t what makes it true.  I believe it is true because I find the Bible to be authoritative.   But the massive amount of verses does prove that this is a fundamental Christian doctrine and not up for debate.

    Mr. Currie holds to the view that whatever you believe can be true (“their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us”).  As I’ve pointed out before, religious pluralism is intellectually bankrupt.  Religions and cults make mutually exclusive truth claims.  More than one can’t be true.  Truth is that which corresponds to reality.  Gutless pastors who say that all religions are paths to God should find new jobs.

    Most Biblical scholars don’t believe that Jesus said what he is quoted to have said in John 14.

    By “most Biblical scholars” he means “most theologically liberal scholars, especially the kind they trot out on PBS religious specials.”  This is the same band of apostates the media tries to present as mainstream Christianity.

    You can see what a low view of scripture he has.  That is his prerogative, of course, but seems like an odd thing to say for someone who is devoting his life to leading a Christian church.

    Again, they have to rationalize away many more verses than just John 14:6.   They can’t even keep John 3:16 & 17 (“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”).

    The Gospel of John was written some hundred years after the death of Jesus and none of the earlier Gospel accounts suggest the kind of exclusive theology that John does here. It is highly likely that this passage is simply a theological reflection of the early Christian community rather then something that Jesus himself believed.

    The notion that the Gospel of John was written around 130 A.D. is grossly untrue.  See When was the New Testament written for more.  How he determined that it was “highly likely” that someone lied about what Jesus said was not mentioned.

    I’m not picking on Rev. Currie personally.  It is his theology I have a problem with.  As best I can tell he is a good family man and supports some good causes like better support for returning veterans.  But his theology is par for the course for countless apostate pastors.

    By the way, when I commented on his blog with some of these points he dodged the real issues and attacked the source of the pamphlet listing the 100 verses (Stand to Reason).  He actually criticized the fact that their leaders were white guys from the U.S., as if that made their work less valid (By the way, Chuck is a white guy from the U.S.).  I reminded him that most African churches are far more orthodox than his church is.

    If Chuck really believes that all these religions lead to God, shouldn’t his church send out reverse missionaries to convert Christians back to their local religions?  Why should Christians in India be suffering so if Hinduism is an equally valid path to God?

    People get offended by the notion that Jesus is the only way to salvation as if that is a bad thing.  But they are missing the whole point: We are dead in our sins without him.  We should be rejoicing that there is a way back to God at all – any way.  Praise God for that!

    You can order the pamphlet for $2 here.  If the link doesn’t work, go here and go to the store and search for “Jesus, The Only Way: 100 Verses.”

    Heretics ‘R Us

    I dropped by The Reverend Chuck Currie’s blog to see what The Reverend Chuck Currie had to say.  Because, after all, The Reverend Chuck Currie is a reverend.  You can tell, because it says so in his blog title.

    He is a leader in the United Church of Christ denomination, a group that is apparently not too keen on sound doctrine.  This guy just got ordained and he is continuing to preach heresies.

    Oddly, his sermon on John 14:6 (Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”) was on a single verse, and his key points were to claim that Jesus was not the only way to the Father, that other religions such as Islam should inform our view of the Gospel, and that the Bible is not accurate or reliable. I downloaded the sermon and quoted a few parts below.

    Got that?  You are sitting in a United Church of Christ building ready to hear a lesson from the Word of God, only to have the “Reverend” tell you that the Bible is not the Word of God and that Jesus is not the only way to salvation.  You can trust what other religions teach you because God apparently revealed himself accurately in them, but He did not reveal himself properly in the Bible.  And this guy just graduated from a “Christian” seminary.  Check.

    Here are some excerpts from his message:

    Is John 14:16 (sic) the literal word of God or is it a human reflection that speaks to how the early Christian community understood their faith?

    Biblical scholars in mainline seminaries agree that Jesus never spoke the words attributed to him in our reading from this morning.

    Looks like someone went scholar-shopping and found just what he was looking for.  And don’t you love the patronizing bit about those deluded early Christians who gave their lives for the faith but were just imagining that Jesus really said those things?

    The Gospel of John was written some 100 years after the death of Jesus and in no other writing is Jesus said to have made such exclusive claims about the faith.  So why after 100 many years have passed since the his death would someone remember things so differently – so starkly differently.

    First, the dating for the Gospel of John is much earlier than 100 years after the death of Jesus.  Chuck has been corrected on this point but he ignores it.

    He also ignores that there are 100 passages stating that Jesus is the only way.  He pretends that John 14:6 is the only Bible verse making this claim.  He has also determined that the gnostic Gospel of Thomas is more authoritative than the Gospel of John – even though the early church did not even hint at holding that view.

    It might be better to read this passage as a statement of faith from the early Christian community, who believed with conviction that Jesus was the way, the truth and the life.  I share that conviction today.

    No, he doesn’t.  If he really thought Jesus was the way then he wouldn’t stand in a pulpit and spread these lies.

    But I’m not so arrogant to think that my own understanding of God surprasses all other understandings of God . . . Is it possible that God speaks through Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and the world’s other great religions?

    Ah, there’s the passive-aggresive tolerance trick.  The reverend dogmatically states that Jesus is not the only way, that the Gospel of John was written 100 years after Jesus’ death and contains falsehoods, the Gospel of Thomas is authoritative, the Bible is not, etc.  But he’s not going to be arrogant like those who don’t hold those views!  How humble.

    And no, God does not speak through other world religions.  They may contain some truths but that doesn’t mean they are from God.  If you took even 10% of the Bible seriously you would never make that claim.  Religious pluralism is intellectually bankrupt.

    Let us resolve as members of the Christian faith to be open to hearing God speak through other voices, and as we preach the Gospel message let our hearts welcome new insights about God from other faithful traditions.

    What kind of nonsense is that?   He says we are supposed to preach the Gospel, but we’re supposed to let other faithful traditions inform our views.  Huh?  What Gospel is that?  What is the standard of truth now that he has tossed out the Bible?  What do the Koran and the teachings of other false religions have to teach us about Jesus that the Bible does not?

    I would encourage the reverend to meditate on this verse, except that he has probably eliminated from his slim-line Bible already:

    Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

    I say with complete confidence that the gospel (small “g”) that The Reverend Chuck Currie preaches is radically different than the one the Apostle Paul was referring to.

    “Reverends” like this mock the cross and the blood of the martyrs.  I am glad we live in a country where people have the freedom to preach whatever they like.  We even have a name for people who hold these views: Non-Christians.

    More here.